**Be warned. If you have not read these books, there may or may not be spoilers--who can say?**
First off, I would like to state that I was a big fan of both--until I put them together and analyzed them. So to start, I will list off the good and bad things about the books separately to show that I am an almost fair person. Prepare yourself for a long and nerdy book post, and let's begin with Mr. William Golding.
Lord of the Flies - Pros:
1) The Obscure Setting: At times, the characters hint at a war occurring between the Communists and England along with other unclear history facts that could very well mean that this book not only takes place on an uncharted island but in the future. After all, an aerial battle happens at night in one of the chapters, and a dead pilot parachutes down to the island. Sounds like war to me. I think this shows the subtle hints of man's savage nature and even adds to the confusion of being stranded on the island. Not only is the reader stranded on the island with the characters, but they feel like they're stranded in time. There's nothing as annoying as a book handing every answer to the reader on a silver platter when the characters haven't figured it out yet. Let the reader take the same journey; that's why they're reading the book.
2) The Novel Plot: No, this is not a pun. I literally mean a new idea that hadn't been written about at the time. A group of kids stranded on an island, forced to become adults dealing with man's inherent, evil nature? Brilliant. To write about a world without adults but show how it's the same world as adults? Novel. One-third of the way through the book, the kids are no longer referred to as children or kids but as "savages" because they have painted their faces and fashioned weapons. Halfway through, even the reader forgets they are kids because of their behavior patterns. They become more and more like adults until an actual adult is finally shown at the end, and the characters are savages no more but kids. They were about to kill the main character, but the adult sees it all as "just a game." Heartbreaking.
3) The Narration: For some, this would be a major con. William Golding writes in a very straightforward, matter-of-fact tone and style that some may find extremely boring. Instead of describing a grotesque scene, sometimes you don't even realize a child has died until you think about what you've just read; as opposed to a narration whose goriness doesn't really let you think about the act of murder but makes you numb to death, William Golding writes life like it is: when you die, you die. There is no need to embellish it. There is no need to write anything gory and action-filled about a child's death--when a group of children murder another child, I think that's about enough for my heartstrings. This narration makes you think about death and realize how disturbing it is. Instead of death happening in the first five seconds, it happens near the end, giving you time to build up your emotions and be heartbroken.
4) The Theme: Man has inherent, wicked desires. This theme is strong and hits home. This book shows the natural intent of humans once the restraints of society have vanished. If children can murder each other without remorse, what can men do without the restraints of society? Quite a thinker and quite a heartbreaker. Again, the transition of the children to savages then back to children is stunning and seamless. William Golding certainly made his point even more clear by using children as his platform to catch the attention of his readers. We see adults murdering each other all the time so he reached us in a fresh way. Death is death, but with children, we actually realize that it is death. Suddenly, we're not so numb anymore.
Cons:
1) The Narration: "What? But I thought you just said this was a pro? You're losing me, Matthew." True, I am a fan of William Golding's matter-of-fact style, but sometimes, it can get a little overbearing. In the scenes where no symbolism or theme is occurring, the drone pattern of his diction can get tiresome. When I first read the book, I found myself skimming several passages and having to read the pages again. The problem with getting into this habit is skimming important sections later on--after all, you don't realize they're important thematically when you're skimming. For some, this seemingly action-less book can be a chore to get through.
2) The Subject Matter: The book as a whole is very dark. While I did not realize it at the time, it gave me some nightmares because I was too young the first time I read it. I love the dark aspect of the book, but not many people will want to pick up a book about children murdering other children. While it was okay in book form, it did not work well as a movie. I tried watching the Lord of the Flies movie, but I only got through ten seconds. There's a stark difference between reading children being stranded on an island and hearing them cry out for their mommy. I knew what would be coming an hour later in the movie, and I wouldn't be able to handle it. If the book made my heart race and tears fill to my eyes, what could the movie do to my sleep schedule? Unless some struggling director out there wants to get famous by making a dark indy version of the book, then it can never become a movie.
However, I would like to be proved wrong.
The Hunger Games Trilogy - Pros:
1) The Storyline: It's a riveting story, and I like it in trilogy form. It's got some very memorable character and an amazing plot. A sadistic game where children are forced to compete for their lives for the pleasure of a corrupted Capital? It's Lord of the Flies with a little political satire--what could be better? Just when you think the book is about Katniss and Peeta surviving the Hunger Games, you realize it's about them unwittingly outsmarting the Capital and starting a revolution. You think the climax is the end of the Hunger Games, but Katniss soon finds out that her greatest challenge yet to come is facing President Snow (my favorite twist in a book was right here--the physical climax wasn't the real climax at all). In Catching Fire, Katniss finds herself again in the Hunger Games, but the real problem is the conspiracy of which she's finding herself in the middle. Mockingjay (my favorite of the series) finally delves into the rebellion against the Capital, the moment to which the entire trilogy has been leading (took long enough). Again, the greatest climax is the split-second decision to stop her friends from making the same mistake that the heads of the Capital made many years ago. In a twist, she kills the president of the rebellion to end the Hunger Games forever. Pretty exciting, I say.
2) The Theme: War never changes and neither does human nature. Sound familiar? Thought so. Like I said, the leaders of the rebellion were about to start the vicious Hunger Games all over again, showing how human nature had done a complete 180 turn. War never changes and neither does human nature. It's a powerful point, and it's shown not only through the event of the Hunger Games but through the ever-present political satire (something that was entirely left out of the movie). If there is anything that reveals the true vicious nature of humankind, it's politics. Politics is nothing but a façade, and the trilogy showed this both on the good and the bad side.
3) The Narration: As a young man, it was quite nice to get a look inside a girl's mind. Not only was the narration 1st person, but it was present tense. If a book is written in 1st person, past tense, the reader knows that the character survived the book; however, in present tense, Katniss could have very easily died at any moment. Juxtaposed with my sense of impending doom was the solid character narration throughout the entire trilogy. I enjoyed the fresh perspective of a character narrator as opposed to an omniscient and unbiased one. Her narration was her limited knowledge--the readers knew only what she knew and found out what she knew exactly when she did. The reader felt a bond with Katniss. I applaud Suzanne Collins for this.
4) The Characters: Suzanne Collins did very well creating memorable characters. She pulled a J.R.R. Tolkien with some of their names being odd and some normal (Aragorn/Haymitch and Sam/Gale), but overall each of these characters were unique. My favorite was the change in Peeta in Mockingjay which made the reader no longer feel as though they had a safe place. Their most beloved character could have turned on the good guys at any moment. These characters helped moved the story along and were easily translated into film.
Cons:
1) The Narration: "My, God, Matthew! What is it with you and narration? You like it, you don't like it--why am I even reading this blog?!" Like I said, as a young man, it was quite nice to get a look inside a girl's mind--until it drove me crazy. Yes, Katniss could have very have easily died at any moment (God knows I wanted her to in Mockingjay), but her thoughts would never die. Over the course of the trilogy, Katniss Everdeen does not change. What was the point of the entire trilogy if the main character didn't change? She starts off as an immature brat with a loud narration that I tolerated because I assumed she would grow and ends with her getting what she wanted while still being an immature brat. She may be skilled with a bow, but she sure as heck didn't deserve Peeta. The narration was especially long in the first half of Mockingjay where nothing exciting happened plot-wise. In the other two books, the reader gets used to the fast-paced style and suddenly is bored to death by Katniss' overthinking and boy-crazy hormones. Be prepared to sit through 150 pages of "He loves me, he loves me not, actually I don't like him, whoops I kissed Gale again." Can we get back to the war? This can't be just me being a guy.
2) The Love Story: I went there. Let's be honest, I am a die-hard, hopeless romantic, but this love story took the place of the main story line when it shouldn't have. True, I'm not a fan of kitschy overdone love triangles, but I did like the choice between Peeta and Gale. The problem is that, for a love story, the author has to completely show that the ones that end up together were always meant to be; sometimes, this can translate very obviously, and every person reading the book is then left wondering why so much time was being spent with Gale when she blatantly wouldn't pick him. In fact, why was so much time spent on this triangle at all? So much political satire and theme was lost in the pages that were being filled up with useless Katniss love thoughts, love decisions, and love over-thinking. If the love thing had been a subplot, the books could have really achieved some thought-provoking themes. Instead, I was waiting for Katniss and Peeta to finally get together so my ulcers could heal. Unfortunately, this is the only thing the people in Hollywood picked up when they got the rights to the books (Disclosure: I have not seen the Catching Fire movie. I am speaking from the experience of the first). The political satire was gone and the themes dwindled to make room for...
Team Peeta VS Team Gale.
Because we wanted another Twilight.
Now that the Lord of the Flies and the Hunger Games have been (thoroughly) evaluated, let's put them together and see what we get.
Both show the wickedness of mankind via children murdering each other (possibly in the future), but one makes the reader feel the weight of this theme much more than the other. The central plot of the Lord of the Flies was the savagery of the children while the central plot of the Hunger Games was muddied in between boy-problems, evil human nature, and rebellion against the government. The latter is an action series that does exactly what it's designed to do but doesn't quite make you think, while the former is an intellectual book that finds your heartstrings and severs them.
The problem, as I see it, is that Suzanne Collins couldn't decide between writing a teen action series or an adult thought-provoker, so she did both, causing each side falter to make room for the other. Lord of the Flies is very clear about what it is; it is not for young ages. In Hunger Games, at the times when I was expecting love triangle, there were bursts political satire, and vice versa. Lord of the Flies takes the entire book to get to a child's death, and that wait is heartbreaking. The Hunger Games on the other hand, makes the reader numb to the killing. It happens so fast and is glossed over so the reader doesn't think twice. When a child gets killed in the Hunger Games, I don't gasp--it doesn't disturb me. Children murdering children should be disturbing, and this just wasn't achieved. I should be disturbed.
This is especially true in the movie versions: one was a teen action movie that achieved this goal but didn't make me think about the death, and the other was something I could not even watch because I could already feel the tears looming. If the Hunger Games was supposed to teach about the brutality of war (as explained in the end pages of Mockingjay about how Peeta and Katniss would never heal) then why didn't it impact me? It just boils down to simple facts: Lord of the Flies got my heart racing, made me tear up, made me think, and gave me nightmares while the Hunger Games was an enjoyable series that got my heart racing.
For this reason, I will recommend the Lord of the Flies over the Hunger Games any day. If you actually want to learn about the savage nature of man, the Hunger Games is not the way to do it (unless you want the abridged version). Okay, so I'm a die hard Lord of the Flies fan, but even this book has its cons. If you can get through the more tedious sections, I would absolutely recommend it. Take this entire post as a book suggestion. Pick up a book that will not only entertain you but make you think.
Unless you adore steamy love triangles, teenage girl narration, and rebelling against authority.
Then boy do I have a suggestion for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment